Confused about isospin conservation in rho to pion decays

Dilatino
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
The decay

<br /> \rho^0 \rightarrow \pi^- \pi^+<br />

occurs with a probability of 100\%, whereas the decay

<br /> \rho^0 \rightarrow \pi^0 \pi^0<br />

does not occur in nature, due to isosphin conservation.
I don't understand this.
Looking at the Isospin and its third component ¦I,I_3\rangle we have in the first decay

<br /> ¦1,0\rangle \rightarrow ¦1,-1\rangle \otimes¦1,-1\rangle<br />

and for the second decay

<br /> ¦1,0\rangle \rightarrow ¦1,0\rangle \otimes¦1,0\rangle<br />

There are a few things that confuse me to the effect, that I don't understand why the first decay is allowed (by isospin conservation) whereas the second is not:

1. To obtain the isospin of the final two-meson state, does one not have to add the isospin of the two mesons, such that it would be 2 \neq 1 which is not the same as the isospino of the initial meson, such that both decays should be disallowed?

2. Adding the third components of the isospin for the two final-state mesons gives 0 which is the same as the third component of the isospin of the inital meson.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Dilatino said:
1. To obtain the isospin of the final two-meson state, does one not have to add the isospin of the two mesons, such that it would be 2≠12 \neq 1 which is not the same as the isospino of the initial meson, such that both decays should be disallowed?
No, you have to construct the decomposition of the final state into isospin irreps. The product of two isospin 1 states result in one quintuplet (isospin 2), one triplet (isospin 1) and one singlet (isospin 0). The part contributing to the decay is that with the same isospin as the in state, ie, the triplet.

Dilatino said:
Adding the third components of the isospin for the two final-state mesons gives 0 which is the same as the third component of the isospin of the inital meson.
Yes, but it is not part of the triplet and therefore not contributing.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top